Impact of management components, abiotic factors and soil biological activity on carbon stocks in temperate forests

Forests are pivotal in regulating the global carbon cycle, yet the complex interplay among forest management practices, abiotic conditions, and soil biological activity in shaping carbon stocks remains insufficiently understood. This study addresses parts of this knowledge gap by disentangling the influence of certain abiotic, biotic and management factors on above- and belowground carbon stocks in temperate forests across four ecoregions in north-western Germany, differing in site conditions and forest communities. In each region, 50 plots were established along a gradient of management intensity, ranging from beech or oak reserves to conifer-dominated stands. Carbon stocks were quantified in aboveground biomass, roots, deadwood, and the organic layer, as well as in mineral soil at depths of 0–5, 5–30 and 30–60 cm. We show that aboveground carbon storage was primarily determined by forest management, while soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks were mainly controlled by abiotic site conditions. An increased proportion of conifers was associated with higher SOC stocks in the organic layer (∼ 1.8 Mg SOC ha −1 per +10 % conifers). However, these thick organic layers are vulnerable to rapid decomposition following canopy disturbances such as windthrow or fire, whereas long-term stable carbon storage is primarily provided by the mineral soil. Significant lower SOC stocks (average 23 Mg ha −1 ) were observed in mineral soils of formerly limed plots. Structural equation modeling indicated that a greater share of deciduous trees affects SOC stocks both directly and indirectly. Contrary to the direct negative effect on SOC stocks, increasing broadleaves enhance soil biological activity, which in turn promoted the transfer of organic carbon from the labile organic layer to the more stable mineral soil pool. Although targeted management can influence SOC, its overall effect is relatively minor compared to that of abiotic factors. • Aboveground carbon stocks are primarily determined by management. • Management has overall little effect on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. • SOC stocks are mainly controlled by abiotic factors (stone content and moisture). • Liming reduces SOC stocks in organic layer and mineral soil. • Broadleaves enhance microbial growth and thus indirectly SOC stocks in mineral soil.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Forest Ecology and Management
Published
2025-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123306
Primary Topic
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of management components, abiotic factors and soil biological activity on carbon stocks in temperate forests

Norbert Hölzel, Michael Elmer, Jens Wöllecke, Britta Linnemann et al.
Forest Ecology and Management
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
article

Impact of management components, abiotic factors and soil biological activity on carbon stocks in temperate forests

Norbert Hölzel, Michael Elmer, Jens Wöllecke, Britta Linnemann, Ute Hamer, Theresa Klein‐Raufhake, Lea Santora, Max Fornfeist, Katharina Rentemeister, Michael Meyer, Jens Jakob Schaper
article en

Abstract

Forests are pivotal in regulating the global carbon cycle, yet the complex interplay among forest management practices, abiotic conditions, and soil biological activity in shaping carbon stocks remains insufficiently understood. This study addresses parts of this knowledge gap by disentangling the influence of certain abiotic, biotic and management factors on above- and belowground carbon stocks in temperate forests across four ecoregions in north-western Germany, differing in site conditions and forest communities. In each region, 50 plots were established along a gradient of management intensity, ranging from beech or oak reserves to conifer-dominated stands. Carbon stocks were quantified in aboveground biomass, roots, deadwood, and the organic layer, as well as in mineral soil at depths of 0–5, 5–30 and 30–60 cm. We show that aboveground carbon storage was primarily determined by forest management, while soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks were mainly controlled by abiotic site conditions. An increased proportion of conifers was associated with higher SOC stocks in the organic layer (∼ 1.8 Mg SOC ha −1 per +10 % conifers). However, these thick organic layers are vulnerable to rapid decomposition following canopy disturbances such as windthrow or fire, whereas long-term stable carbon storage is primarily provided by the mineral soil. Significant lower SOC stocks (average 23 Mg ha −1 ) were observed in mineral soils of formerly limed plots. Structural equation modeling indicated that a greater share of deciduous trees affects SOC stocks both directly and indirectly. Contrary to the direct negative effect on SOC stocks, increasing broadleaves enhance soil biological activity, which in turn promoted the transfer of organic carbon from the labile organic layer to the more stable mineral soil pool. Although targeted management can influence SOC, its overall effect is relatively minor compared to that of abiotic factors. • Aboveground carbon stocks are primarily determined by management. • Management has overall little effect on soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. • SOC stocks are mainly controlled by abiotic factors (stone content and moisture). • Liming reduces SOC stocks in organic layer and mineral soil. • Broadleaves enhance microbial growth and thus indirectly SOC stocks in mineral soil.

Forest Ecology and ManagementVol. 600
University of Münster (DE), Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SK), Landesinstitut für Arbeitsgestaltung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE), Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Klima Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.